Ask HN: Have you ever been hurt by a lack of privacy? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Have you ever been hurt by a lack of privacy?

9 pointsmarmot77721 comments

I've recently taken an interest in privacy and security. The two concepts seem bound. A lot of people seem freaked out that the government and corporations are monitoring everything. I'm not saying they shouldn't be freaked out. But I'm wondering specifically why are people freaked out? Are there material ways that this lack of privacy hurts people or is it more anticipation of future harm?

View on HN

> Are there material ways that this lack of privacy hurts people...

In the safety of your own privacy, you can let go of common expectations. Being constantly recorded introduces a huge stressor, no matter how virtuous you are. You can't let go of past mistakes because other people certainly won't.

Lack of privacy in overcrowded prisons does kill people, mostly out of desperation. Convicts get extremely violent when their physical AND mental space is not respected. I believe privacy to be as important as any other needs after basic survival. http://www.npr.org/2016/03/24/470824303/doubling-up-prisoner...

> ...or is it more anticipation of future harm?

"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." You're not human anymore, you're a walking narrative: a commie under McCarthy, a heretic in Renaissance Italy, a witch in 1597 Scotland, a queer in the Middle East. Ambitious people protect their privacy because they know anything can be turned against them. Authority lives and dies by mud-digging and scandals.

The Cardinal Richelieu quote's chilling. That's got to be one of the most evil sentences uttered by humans.

> That's got to be one of the most evil sentences uttered by humans.

Its a fairly matter-of-fact description of the state of law at the time. (Note that that statement itself -- though Richelieu himself was in a privileged enough position to have no concern -- could easily have been an example of the effect it described, as it suggested both that the King's law was evil in condemning the honest, and that the King's law was capriciously enforced, either of which could be lèse-majesté.)

Yes. First of all people don't record or search information not to use it. Second of all, surveillance doesn't have to be used to stifle dissent, it's very existence does so.

More broadly a lack of privacy creates risks for people like rape victims, people fleeing domestic abuse, the LGBT community, women's rights activists.

I'll pull a few links for the US, but remember, surveillance isn't just an issue in the US. Think about China and Russia.

http://time.com/2970573/muslim-american-nsa-spies/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93King_suicide_lette...

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/04/how-su...

Thank you. I'm no troll looking for an argument as that's a strong case you make. I figured those who responded would be those who know something about this topic. I appreciate it.

That's a broad field. I might not even know if some data collected about me leads to a higher price when looking for a product or a flight on the internet. I don't know what the immigration officer or the police may find on record about me when checking my data. An insurer might have given me a less favorable tariff without my knowledge based on some data about my driving experience, my hobbies or my health data. And so on. It is not that you know every time you're screwed that you were screwed ... and even less the reason for this.

On the other hand, somebody collecting data about you always results in an uncertainty: The data is potentially stored indefinitely and you don't know where the data might end and who will use it (potentially for his benefit or against my interests) at any point in the future. There are examples of data collection even with a good intent that ended catastrophic. Currently some Turkish citizens and even academics and journalists fear that they might be arrested just for communicating with the "wrong" people in the past.

At least, you have always to assume that collecting of data, monitoring, thighter security and reduced privacy are never only "for good", especially not for the individuals, but more in the interest of government, corporations, political parties and so on. And you never can go back and demand that your data is deleted: The biggest problem is that you don't even know who stores what about you. Combine that with all the data that is collected about you every day: where is your phone located, whom do you call, mail, chat with, what internet pages are you visiting, what apps are you using and where, which photos are you sharing and where and when we're they made, what products are you looking for, which shops are you visiting, which terms are you googling, what are you posting to HN .... lots of reasons to freak out if all this data points fall in the wrong hands.

To add another example to my own text:

Google for something and Google will optimize future results to your known interests. That leads to a filter bubble showing you more and more customized search results. Are you hurt by this? Not knowingly, but perhaps you miss something important. Do most people know about this? Most likely not, so the collection of data leads to a skewed world view.

A bubble's not good no. I think my obliviousness to this issue was a sort of bubble.

And to add insult to injury, even the Noodle shop can stumble with your data: http://www.scmagazine.com/class-action-lawsuit-filed-against...

If you start with an introvert, in the context of online privacy, the simple lack of privacy could be a significant barrier to participation. In a "connected world" this barrier has the potential to affect major parts, if not every part, of your life.

For example, avoiding social/professional media, i.e. Facebook, LinkedIn could have a material negative impact on your life.

Good point. The most prolific and successful users of social media that I personally know have told me directly that they don't care very much about privacy. I know one person who seems to have mastered FB who keeps their profile literally wide open with no privacy controls at all. An introvert would no sooner do that then they'd start singing and skipping down the sidewalk every day.

And as if on queue this article shows up on HN: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/09/12/turn_off_location_se...

I don't know.

Plenty of people can look at my data and based on that take actions against my interests without me ever learning about it.

What would be some examples of that? I'm not doubting that you're correct, it's just I'm trying to grok this.

There is plenty of discriminatory actions that businesses and government organizations can undertake. If you don't get a job because of your medical condition have leaked online how would you know, are you able to gather enough evidence to go to court? As usual it is the most economically underprivileged individuals who would probably suffer first and you probably won't hear from them on HN.

Good point. Nobody would admit denying you a job for something that they found out through an invasion of privacy. I think you're right that those most effected won't likely talk about it here. That said, the demographics here mean the employers typically are making a fairly substantial investment. Your example is a good one. I'm trying to learn so don't yet have a well developed POV on the subject of privacy.

I've recently become more interested in privacy along with security and the experience was like some sort of awakening to all of these things happening around us that I've only vaguely been aware of. Some call it the matrix, I think. :-)

I have an example, someone I know filed a suit against an employer due to a back injury. He won and was able to be off work until he was able to work.

Unfortunately, he was never able to get a full time job again. He worked the rest of his career at a temporary agency. He was constantly close to getting a job but never got it.

Many years later it was discovered that the most likely reason he never got a job was likely because during the background search they found the suit and no company wants to deal with someone that they felt had a possibility of suing.

This was in the 90's. Now it's so much easier to find that info. and more. But you would never know about it and how it effect us.

Perfect example. Ruined the guy's life.

Yes. I self censor tremendously due to the amount of online tracking these days. Even with VPNs, anonymous search engines, and tight browser controls, it's fairly easy to identify people.

Why do you self censor. I could say I'm going to spark up a bowl of good weed right now. So what? You know what I mean. Do those that monitor care about that sort of stuff or are they looking for patterns they judge to be truly dangerous as in a plot. BTW, I'm partly playing the devil's advocate here and realize this is a bit weak. If I had the guts to really say something I'd say Ayahuasca. There you go. Should I be freaked as fuck now? Saying the weed was an easy one since I live Oregon but Ayahuasca. Oh shit, I said it again. Fuck. I have no privacy. And I don't have any Ayahuasca but the point is will my post attract any attention? Does anyone give a shit about that when they are watching or do they have their priorities right, that is, national security. I made the leap and assumed that this was sort of the NSA you're referring to though you could have meant your company monitoring, google for ads, etc.

I'm puzzled why this interest in the topic hit me all at once like a ton of bricks, whereas 6-months ago I didn't think much about it at all. For me, it's been binary. I'm doing some catch up. :-)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com